To clue you in, the comic ray line was started by Prof. Svensmark in 1998. Now it has been shown that, yes comic rays have an influence on cloud generation; but no it is not a dominant effect and definitely can not explain the trend in the later 20th century. But this one of the small puzzle pieces that was shouted down as complete nonsense, just to be reviled as being something; even though not something big.

I think it is impossible to come up with a more accurate model that does not take into account AGW. Because changing the atmosphere and composition of the land masses (e.g. deforestation/urbanization) does have an effect on climate; anybody claiming the opposite is daft. The problem is/was that the fixation on CO2 lead to the neglect of other external factors, such as the sun, cosmic radiation, deforestation... If prediction did incorporate the pause (to a certain extent), the apocalyptic 4C would seem more plausible, but as it stands we are none the wiser.

No mom, I am looking at those little cute birds...

Early arctic explorers reported walrus and seal colonies that stretched miles. Like the buffalo they where industrially hunted in the 19th and early 20th century. The Walrus population has rebounded since their low in the 1950s. Walrus colonies only form on islands, not ice. Now pray tell, how does ice cover in the arctic come into play? (That is a real question, after researching the subject, I can not find any clue how ice cover affects walrus populations.)

I think you hit the nail on the head. Plausible futuristic space fights will probably be quite dull. But that misses all the nice and nasty intrigue that can play out in the attempts control a system.

I did not claim it was, now did I?

But two things are certain, we can assume that the climate models from the late 90s can be rejected with a high certainty (99.9% for a 18 year span*) and that currently there is no climate scientist that can reliably predict when the earth will go out of the pause. The problem is that during the AGW debate too much science and policy was dedicated to the A part of the AGW. I personally think that indiscriminately changing the composition of the atmosphere (anything about the earth actually) will have consequences and as a result we as species should tread lightly. But I am quite disappointed of climate science community, especially in the late 90s.

* Their own definition, if the trends align on an 18 year span the model "must" be accepted with a 99.9% certainty. If you had a course in statistics, you know that the opposite is also true...

I doubt you'd ask a zoologist to explain climate change, so asking a climatologist about migration and social behavior of walruses seems equally bizarre. The WWF's voicing their opinion, not fact.

Your fixation on race shows me you have a deep lying issue that needs to be resolved. For starters I never claimed that the underlying generic makeup that forms race (or sex for that matter) has anything to do with intelligence. Also stating "intelligence" as a general measure is just daft. Some people are good at math, some people are good at linguistic some people are good at spacial reasoning... you get the point. The mere fact that Dyslexia and Autism exist and are hereditary, shows you that a certain amount of your cognitive abilities are hereditary.

Also you chose to ignore 2/3 of my post that expanded on the social economic aspect of it all. What we commonly see as "intelligence" in an adult is primarily the result of his scholastic education that person had. Nevertheless his genetic makeup (not race or sex, different bits) had a significant impact on how easy it was to get there.

Like this: HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series

Ok you want real science? Here is what the Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford has to say on the subject: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover AGW may have severe effects on the environment (18 year pause anyone?), but THIS is not one of them.

1. Disable electronics of missile through EMP/ionizing radiation.
2. Head one side of the missile with a laser so it forms a plasma.
3. Wait
4. See a hunk of metal fly pasts your ship.

Gama ray lasers powered by nuclear bombs? I think it is somewhat possible with current technology, if you can live with fact that you also destroy the lensing apparatus and surrounding environment...

I am not so sure, small scale battles may be feasible. But yes, they probably will be over quite quick and deadly. First, no maned space fighters. Drones can outperform a human pilot easily. You may see larger done carrier ships that are maned, but if they know what is good for them they will try to hang back as far as possible. The ships may have point defenses, but probably no real offensive capabilities. A few high powered lasers to blast asteroids or debris out of the way; not destroy, just heat one side to form a plasma and push it out of the ship's path. That is a better idea than to waste fuel to maneuver around obstacles.

As for weapons, there are multiple options. Interestingly for low yield weapons kinetic projectiles are the way to go. Either you use as the video discussed "cannonballs" but also missiles without explosive charges may do the trick. On the high yield side you can use nukes. Here the radiation is the primary factor, not the blast. The radiation will melt most materials at close range and irradiate anything at far range. Lasers may work at close range, but you will need to find a power source to bring up the energy and keep it cool. You could use gamma ray lasers if you are attacking human targets.

But you are right, when you are going for the kill and are ready to wipe out an entire planet. all you need to do is strap some rockets to a larger asteroid, put it on a collision course and wait.

Then again you may want to keep the few resources you want to control intact. Here way more nefarious techniques make be employed. Assassinate all leaders that oppose joining the empire. Deploy nano bots, like bacteria that kill all high ranking officers of the enemy's armed forces at a certain day in the future.

Unless human nature changes radically, we will see conflict; but it won't be Star Wars.